29 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziHere is the link to the video with his answer that doesn't really answer
if you would bombard einstein with questions about physics and there would be something he can't answer, would you assume he doesn't know anything about physics?
have you read dawkins books? do you know if he understand evolution based on those books or on one question he didn't answer.
and the last question for you, because it is the least important, what exactly was that question and what exactly did he answer?
the question.
In case you can't see the video this is the question:
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary
process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindshe did answer it. a common ancestor evolves into different paths. some "old fish" decide to leave the ocean in search of better lives and they become "old lizards" and "old amphibians", other "old fish" are republicans so they stick with the old ways and remain in the sea, becoming "new fish".
Here is the link to the video with his answer that doesn't really answer
the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
the reason he did hesitate is that he needed some time to form up a decent answer, and knowing who he was dealing with, a decent answer that would be understood by people who do not understand evolution in the first place.
so yeah, i am not convinced. now, reading this explanation, you will say "fine, stick to your godless ways and keep finding excuses defending dawkins and evolution". to which i would say "but that is not fair because when you claim god is genocidal (noah's flood), i try to reason with you and not post dismissive, end-of-discussion statements" and then you will say "noah's flood really happened, it says so in the bible and here are the explanations that even though aren't written in the bible, explain what happened" and then i will say "but nowhere in the bible does it say that and radioactive isotopes dating clearly states that dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago" and then you will say "that is stupid, everyone knows that isotope dating is flawed" and then i will ask you to prove that it is flawed, and you will post some god-forsaken link from a distant corner of the internetz, to which i will think to reply that i can find a link on the internetz that says cannibalism is a good idea but i will think we have derailed the subject long enough, that you will never ever see reason even if it hits you in the face, that you are too old to change and too afraid at what the supreme being of everything would do to an insignificant human who doesn't believe in an insignificant fable (as if the supreme being would have nothing better to do). and i will give up.
see? we just saved about 2-3 pages of posts in the above summary. isn't it better this way?
29 Aug 11
7 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAs long as there are people who say Intelligent Design has to and can only mean Belief in God I will point out the converse is also true. Some new atheists believe that Evolution HAS to mean no existence of God.
that be true. one cannot take a source of influence that affects one individual and apply it across the board to everyone in the same camp.
Any insinuation that the generalities only come from the side of fundamentalist Christians will be rejected as totally unrealistic and idealistic. Some generalities come from the side of fundamentalists Atheists too.
Furthermore twhitehead made some general claim, I don't remember where, that Christians absolve themselves from blame with a belief that someone else is making them do things.
I don't believe he actually believes that. Besides the American comedian Flip Wilson's comedy routine "Oh the Devil made me do that!" I don't know of any Christians saying that because "the devil made them do something" they are absolved from responsibility before God.
That was probably twhitehead's lie. If Christians believe that Christ is the Savior, then they believe that they are responsible for the sins they committed from which they need to be saved. And that even if the Devil was involved in making them do things.
They would not hold that GUILT requires salvation and forgiveness unless they believed that they were responsible.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillEven if that were so, evolution would not be equivalent to atheism. Not in the slightest.
As long as there are people who say Intelligent Design [b]has to and can only mean Belief in God I will point out the converse is also true. Some new atheists believe that Evolution HAS to mean no existence of God.[/b]
Furthermore twhitehead made some general claim, I don't remember where, that Christians absolve themselves from blame with a belief that someone else is making them do things.
Unless you can quote me, I will take it that I was not as general as you think.
That was probably twhitehead's lie.
If you accuse me of lying, have the decency to quote me or at least provide a link to where I am accused of saying something.
But we both know, that this is not about me lying, it is about you lying and not having a valid defence, so you are forced to try and attack me rather than admit your lie.
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut the questiom was not about the imaginary common ancestor of man.
he did answer it. a common ancestor evolves into different paths. some "old fish" decide to leave the ocean in search of better lives and they become "old lizards" and "old amphibians", other "old fish" are republicans so they stick with the old ways and remain in the sea, becoming "new fish".
the reason he did hesitate is that he needed some time to for ...[text shortened]... bout 2-3 pages of posts in the above summary. isn't it better this way?
Here is the question again:
"Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary
process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
He made no attempt to answer this question. He decided to answer
another question that he made up, thinking nobody would remember
the original question.
She probably could have worded the question better. What she was
looking for was some proof that an organism could gain more new
information so that it could evolve into something else.
It has been suggested by twhitethead that Down Syndrome is an
example, since he said it results in a new chromosome. However
when I looked it up on wikipedia this is what I found:
Down syndrome, or Down's syndrome trisomy 21, is a chromosomal condition
caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome.
So this is not actually an additional chromosome with new information,
but a duplication of a part or all of the 21st chromosome. This would
be similiar to a cow having an extra leg that is useless. In fact this
is not helpful to the person with the Down Syndrome since it reduces
their IQ to about 50 or 60.
30 Aug 11
5 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Even if that were so, evolution would not be equivalent to atheism. Not in the slightest.
[b]Furthermore twhitehead made some general claim, I don't remember where, that Christians absolve themselves from blame with a belief that someone else is making them do things.
Unless you can quote me, I will take it that I was not as general as you think. ...[text shortened]... not having a valid defence, so you are forced to try and attack me rather than admit your lie.[/b]
If you accuse me of lying, have the decency to quote me or at least provide a link to where I am accused of saying something.
But we both know, that this is not about me lying, it is about you lying and not having a valid defence, so you are forced to try and attack me rather than admit your lie.
Stop being such a hypocrit.
You accused me of lying FIRST. OH yes, you said that I lied, but you didn't call me a "liar". Very clever. Very clever indeed!
If I could find the quote I would have quoted it. I know I read it.
And as long as some of you atheist have a knee jerk reaction that ID means Theism, it will be pointed out that to some New Atheists, Evolution means Atheism.
Ie. "Oh the generalizations only come from the fundamentalist Christian side, but not our side as atheists." That is a lie.
You were the first to bring up the word "lie" so we'll feed you with some of your own medicine.
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillIn what way am I a hypocrit?
Stop being such a hypocrit.
You accused me of lying FIRST.
Correct. And I quoted you and made it clear where I thought you lied and gave you the opportunity to defend yourself.
If I could find the quote I would have quoted it. I know I read it.
And I know I didn't type it. So all we have is your unsubstantiated claim. If you cant point out where I said it, then how can I defend myself?
And as long as some of you atheist have a knee jerk reaction that ID means Theism, it will be pointed out that to some New Atheists, Evolution means Atheism.
But us atheists don't have a knee jerk reaction that ID means theism. Not one person over in the science forum substantiated that claim. And you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever that any New Atheists (whatever that means) claim that Evolution means Atheism.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlso, according to the RCC and many other Christian churches, evolution doesn't mean atheism.
In what way am I a hypocrit?
[b]You accused me of lying FIRST.
Correct. And I quoted you and made it clear where I thought you lied and gave you the opportunity to defend yourself.
If I could find the quote I would have quoted it. I know I read it.
And I know I didn't type it. So all we have is your unsubstantiated claim. If you cant p ...[text shortened]... nce whatsoever that any New Atheists (whatever that means) claim that Evolution means Atheism.[/b]
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Views-on-Evolution.aspx
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by JS357The atheist only use the theory of evolution to support their theory that
Also, according to the RCC and many other Christian churches, evolution doesn't mean atheism.
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Views-on-Evolution.aspx
there is no God.
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsLet me blunt here Ron. You wouldn't know the truth if it walked up to you, smacked you round the face, pulled your pants and trousers down and shoved a pole up your arse.
The Holy Bible is the "Word of Truth". I will not replace the truth with a
lie from Richard Dawkins or anybody.